You're the guy that made it very clear that you were bothered by the fact that you were stopped in South Dakota by an "old white guy" because you were black, heavily implying it was racial profiling and using the civil law aspect of it as a thinly veiled attempt to get your point across. It happened six ******* years ago, if you haven't figured it out by now, you probably never will, as evidenced by this five page back and forth babbling.

You're the tool that made it very clear that you were bothered by the fact that you were stopped in South Dakota by an "old white guy" because you were black, heavily implying it was racial profiling and using the civil law aspect of it as a thinly veiled attempt to get your point across. It happened six ******* years ago, if you haven't figured it out by now, you probably never will, as evidenced by this five page back and forth babbling.

The thread was an inquiry about civil and political rights. The details of my story were just a framework to ask the question of a much bigger topic and more so along the lines of correct protocol and procedure regarding public officials/officers and civilians.

It wasn't a rant about being racially profiled. My hunch as to why me and my friend were pulled over wasn't vital to the topic being talked about. I could have taken that comment out and still had the same inquiry. Oh my goodness really...

Is that a state law? Because the other poster eaglesalltheway said this wasn't the case in PA. At least that is what the officer that pulled him over told him, that an officer should tell the driver why he was stopped first.

And yes you should always be friendly with a police officer.

Well I'm certainly most familiar with Ohio/Kentucky law more than any other and there might be some variation between states but this mostly seems like an issue of police procedure more than anything else. Your constitutional rights say they are not allowed to detain you unlawfully and that means they cannot do so without reason. There is a window where they are allowed to question you/run your identification/call in a k-9 but that seems to be it. This time period is generally not seen as an infringement upon your liberty even without reason but anything further generally is seen as such. I find it hard to believe there is much of a difference between states on this.

Well I'm certainly most familiar with Ohio/Kentucky law more than any other and there might be some variation between states but this mostly seems like an issue of police procedure more than anything else. Your 4th Amendment right says they are not allowed to detain you unlawfully and that means they cannot do so without reason. There is a window where they are allowed to question you/run your identification/call in a k-9 but that seems to be it. This time period is generally not seen as an infringement upon your liberty even without reason but anything further generally is seen as such. I find it hard to believe there is much of a difference between states on this.

Right. And I know within that period of questioning you can ask if you are being detained and/or if you are free to go. If they have probable cause, they can hold you. In other words, if there is a reasonable belief that you have committed a crime.

You can still not consent to things like searches, and if the police still search you...well in a court case that will hold up in your favor.

Is that a state law? Because the other poster eaglesalltheway said this wasn't the case in PA. At least that is what the officer that pulled him over told him, that an officer should tell the driver why he was stopped first.

And yes you should always be friendly with a police officer.

No he said an officer told him. That the officer said he "should have told him" does not equate to "is legally obligated" to tell him.

Keep in mind that there are nice officers as well who feel that they "should" tell you in order to prevent confrontation from a motorist who refuses to give his license simply because he was given a good reason. Just because an officer is thorough, courteous, and helpful, does NOT mean it was his legal obligation to be so.

Only time I've ever been pulled over was for going 84 in a 70 on TX-71, and the state trooper was like, "Thanks for actually pulling off the highway" (I pulled on a county road) and just gave me a warning. Texas state troopers are cool. Suburban cops 'round yonder like to **** with teenagers, haha.

living in south dakota, i have been pulled over about 9 times, 5 of those 9 times (whether i knew what i did or not), the cop asked for license/ registration/ proof of insurance before he told me what I did. the times that they did ask for my information first I knew damn well what I did, whether it be speeding, driving with a tail light out, etc.

OK so here is how I believe this works based off from a small amount of research.

If you are walking down the street and a cop randomly asks you for you ID you have no obligation to give it to them. Less so if there is no law requiring someone to have ID (you don't need a walking license) If you are the DRIVER then yes you are 100% obligated to give him your ID as you are performing an activity that requires identification. But as the passenger you are not required to give ID. In neither case is the officer obligated to tell you why your ID is required. I've been pulled over twice while driving, once while biking, and three times while walking.

Not once was a reason given to why my ID was asked for til after I handed it to them.

__________________
Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji

living in south dakota, i have been pulled over about 9 times, 5 of those 9 times (whether i knew what i did or not), the cop asked for license/ registration/ proof of insurance before he told me what I did. the times that they did ask for my information first I knew damn well what I did, whether it be speeding, driving with a tail light out, etc.